Anna Raccoon Archives

Post navigation

Whither the NSPCC in ten years time?

The Anna Raccoon Archives

by Anna Raccoon on March 5, 2014

In the autumn of last year, a memo was leaked to The Times newspaper, written by the RSPCA’s deputy chairman, Paul Draycott, which discussed the charity’s aims for ‘ten years hence’. It reminded me of the RSPCA’s remarkable powers, based on the 2006 Animal Welfare Act, to mount prosecutions instead of the Crown Prosecution Service, and to simultaneously act as chief investigator. It is the only charity to have such quasi-official powers.

There has been a lot of disquiet about this dual role, and the ‘headline’ and expensive cases which it has used its powers to bring. Something that is probably not too far removed from the charity’s decision to ensure that its chief executive ‘stepped down with immediate effect’, suffering from a medical complaint that was not defined as being either physical or mental, last week. The truly cynical might think that had the cause been physical they would have been at pains to remove any possible misunderstanding from the minds of the general public.

It made me wonder what the NSPCC’s ‘game plan’ for the next ten years might be.

As the months have passed, I have revisited the question from time to time. Generally as a result of yet another press release from the NSPCC or their ‘apprentice’ – NAPAC. They arrive with monotonous regularity.

“Police and CPS leave survivors of child sex abuse in the lurch’ said the latest from NAPAC. ‘Justice’ system still fails victims despite Jimmy Savile’s exposure as Paedophile.

‘Despite Jimmy Savile’s exposure as Paedophile’ – just read that again. Neither the Police nor the CPS have ‘exposed’ Jimmy Savile. Naming Jimmy Savile as a paedophile was the work of the NSPCC charity in their ‘Giving Victims a Voice’ confabulation. They went even further in their September 2013 report on ‘focus groups’ comprised of a handful of those ‘victims’ who reported to Yewtree and they ‘were able to trace’. (Will we ever be told how many of the ‘600’ have vanished following their late night drunken phone call to Yewtree?) In their latest report they refer to ‘crimes committed by Jimmy Savile’. The word ‘vulnerable’ appears in every sentence, as though even ‘alleged’ victims of sexual assault are a homogenous group, who react to the alleged offence in identical manner.

The only Police involvement in ‘Giving Victims a Voice’ was to write down the statements of the many people who phoned ‘Operation Yewtree’ – they didn’t ‘investigate’. In some cases, it was not even current police officers who took down statements. Ex-police officers are merely member of the public. They may remember how to write out a statement, but they have no more authority or standing than you or I writing down what our neighbour has said.

Yet on the basis of this, the NSPCC has appointed itself both Judge and Jury, and is ‘dissatisfied’ with the work of the police and the CPS. Mark Williams-Thomas kept up a chorus of criticism of every police force, the CPS, and every other authoritative body. The lawyers complain loudly that their clients should not be cross questioned in court. They demand that putative victims remain anonymous and are shielded from view in court. It was beginning to seem as though the only people the NSPCC felt were competent to speak to an alleged victim, investigate crimes of child abuse, or pronounce guilt were, er, the NSPCC.

They couldn’t be looking to go down the RSPCA route could they? To be the sole investigating and prosecuting body for child abuse? Surely I was being paranoid – England is the home of the Magna Carta, of Common Law; it was unthinkable that a branch of the criminal law should be handed over to a private charity. Wasn’t it?

“so many criminal cases need to be sent to the crown court, a change that would significantly restrict the right to trial by jury.”

“An inquisitorial system might be an improvement’ he said. Justice dispensed “whilst doing so within limited and reducing resources”.

So, we’ve done away with the jury as a cost cutting exercise, but surely an experienced Judge investigating and pronouncing guilt is a long way from my nightmare scenario of the NSPCC being both prosecutor and investigator? Wait, what is this he said?

Research would have to consider whether an inquisitorial procedure would require more judges or a “new cadre of junior judges“.

Circumstances have changed: […] the crown court is heavily overburdened by a significant proportion of its work relating to serious sexual offences. Surely it is time again to consider this issue again given the financial circumstances in which we are now placed.”

I have never been a fan of a separate category of ‘sexual offences’. I don’t believe that Parliament, or by extension, the law, has any business deciding what sexual practices are or are not acceptable. ALL violence should be criminally prosecuted, as violence, or rather bodily harm. It should make no difference whether it is a punch on the nose or rape. If you have been physically harmed you should expect redress from the criminal courts. It is where the law tries to legislate in respect of emotional or moral harm that it comes unstuck.

Take the example of the laws against, and now permitting, homosexual behaviour. What exactly IS homosexual behaviour, what is normal, what is it that is permitted? Is it ‘whatever’ goes on between two people of the same sex, excluding issues of consent? How is, for example, a young man supposed to judge whether what is asked of him in a homosexual environment is reasonable or not? Nailing his nipples to a bread board? That one was answered in R v Brown, but I could point you to as many ‘unusual’ examples of sexual practices between homosexuals as there are between bizarre heterosexuals. By first proscribing, then permitting, homosexuality they have left a grey area which is capable of confusing a young person.

Professor John Ashton, president of the Faculty of Public Health, called for a national debate on the age of consent. A debate. Re-opening the question of whether 16 is still appropriate 100 years after that age was settled on. It may be that we need to raise the age to 18 – but that is never discussed. In an age when a third of teenagers have sex before they reach 16, we react to the mere suggestion of re-opening the debate with the same horror that we should react to being told to consume our youngest for breakfast. As barrister Barbara Hewson found out when she mooted such a debate. She was assassinated by a sycophantic squad of columnist minions, all of them infected with hypocritical and gleeful spite, ready to vomit out a uniform screed. ‘They are children’.

Indeed they are – because the law says they are – perhaps the law should continue to say they are until they are 18? 21 even?

As I left the UK, to return to the land of spoken English in the streets around you (!) I passed a young woman who I assume was no longer a child, in that she was flying unaccompanied on a Ryanair flight without the luminous tag they place round the necks of 14 year olds. She was wearing a t-shirt that barely reached below her ample chest, exposing an equally ample ‘mid-riff’. At first sight the t-shirt bore the legend ‘Gagging for it’. It was only when she drew a deep breath that you could make out the bottle and glass pictured underneath….

I hope, for her sake, and whoever allowed her out unaccompanied, that wherever she was flying to – Ibiza? Lesbos? Read the full t-shirt message and offered her a drink before getting themselves into trouble with this vulnerable potential ‘victim’.

Your thoughts on my spectre of the NSPCC carving out prosecutions of sexual offences as their specialist area?

As an open-minded (or plain wishy-washy) person, I don’t know what to think of Judge Bartfield’s decision, and I don’t know what to think of mandatory reporting. But is it a fair inference that more of the latter might lead to more cases like the former?

“I don’t believe that Parliament, or by extension, the law, has any business deciding what sexual practices are or are not acceptable.”

Indeed,

“L’État n’a pas d’affaires dans les chambres à coucher de la nation.”

So said Pierre Trudeau, as long ago as 1967, in the Canadian House of Commons on the decriminalization of homosexuality, probably paraphrasing a contemporary Globe and Mail editorial which included “Obviously, the state’s responsibility should be to legislate rules for a well-ordered society. It has no right or duty to creep into the bedrooms of the nation.”

Unfortunately, the associated interests of the puritanical elements of left, right and centre, the radical feminists self conviction of their own infallible moral superiority, the commercial greed of the tabloids and the unseemly, insatiable, prurience of the British public seem to have created the notion that it is everybody’s business what goes on in anyone else’s bedroom, and given credence to the type of utter lunacy in which we now seem to be in danger of drowning.

BTW, when the report appeared the other day in the BBC website about their submitting their new Duncroft file to the CPS, one of the links led to this

It contained the following, something that you could really only believe that maybe ‘Brass Eye’ might make up, both in respect of cast names and terminology used

‘Det Supt Savell said: “We’ve reported heavily on what we did at the time, it’s been accepted that actually there was more that could have been done and it’s now looking forward about the seminal change in the way the police and the Crown Prosecution Service act and react and respond to reports of sexual assault.”‘

Ah yes, Detective Superintendent J Savell reporting on J Savile….. Thank you for digging that up – in the light of the evidence I am now firmly in possession of, that was a particularly interesting snippet. xxxx

If a sexual practice leads to treatment by the National Health Service, at a cost to the taxpayer, then the state has a reason to be concerned. 9The same applies to dangerous sports such as mountain climbing.)

Otherwise, what consenting adults do is indeed no business of the state.

Well, yes, but you can’t have a different law for those who can afford private treatment or whom are visiting from overseas.

what consenting adults do is indeed no business of the state…

This of course is the primary argument made by those who favour legal prostitution but in fact there is no legal or constitutional provision in Europe or the US to stop governments interfering in what people do with their private parts or those of others.

Re: “Well, yes, but you can’t have a different law for those who can afford private treatment or whom are visiting from overseas.

what consenting adults do is indeed no business of the state…

This of course is the primary argument made by those who favour legal prostitution but in fact there is no legal or constitutional provision in Europe or the US to stop governments interfering in what people do with their private parts or those of others”

I think a big part of it is whether they think people could be harming themselves or each other, I think that’s were a lot of the *seemly* odd don’t do this, don’t do that stuff in the bible comes in and they probably used to think, for example, that homosexuality could be physically harmful or dangerous – notice their was no law against ‘lesbianism’.

But we do live in different times now with better hygiene, anti biotics etc – so a lot of the concerns they had in the past (or in biblical times), aren’t such a big concern anymore….

I was reading the CPS guidelines on their website about public decency a while back and they caution against an assumption that practices that may appear physically damaging are necessarily unlawful. This must go back to when there were moves by the cops to start prosecuting S&M warriors for ABH. The most bizarre passage though was where they discuss “cottaging” and they actually specify that sexual activity in a cubicle is deemed lawful so long as the door is closed… The detail and thought these buggers have given to what is approved of, and disapproved of is quite revealing about their states of mind I think. Every time I hear grunting now, I question whether it is merely a case of constipation.

* “This of course is the primary argument made by those who favour legal prostitution but in fact there is no legal or constitutional provision in Europe or the US to stop governments interfering in what people do with their private parts or those of others”

And also notice that in Britain, when homosexuality was still illegal, it was also illegal to sodamise a woman e.g your wife – so it was obviously about more than just ‘homophobia’ – doesn’t mean they law *has* to be the same these days I suppose, things have changed a bit – the doctors will know better than me….

The NSPCC have a unique role from the era of ‘Inspectors’ of being empowered to carry out statutory child protection investigations – but in this they are equivalent only to social services departments. In point of fact these investigation are rarely carried out by the NSPCC. Going back 20 or more years the NSPCC held a significant number of child abuse (safeguarding or whatevers they are now called) registers which determined the future of children held to be at ‘risk’. Many of the cases of alleged ‘satanic abuse’ in the 80s were co-incidentally in areas where the NSPCC called the shots. It was not long after this as I recall, when the cases were seen to be a social worker-led manufacture, that the NSPCC ended their role in respect of the registers. Local authorities hated the NSPCC – not least their ability to duck beneath the parapet whenever there was some child abuse scandal.

I can’t see that that the NSPCC could reasonably take on a investigation/prosecution role in criminal proceedings – not least because that don’t do any ‘investigation’ to speak of. They have been involved in working with the police in joint historic enquiries – but so do social services – in Pallial they appear to have a referral role – which is not much different from the hotlines etc as per the Met Savile Inquiry as per Napac. They may also co-ordinate obtaining records etc, or even witness interviewing. this happens already with social services – a complainant’s evidence on video need not be obtained by a police officer in interview.

But by far the most disturbing point is the possibility of criminal cases being transferred to an ‘inquisitorial system’. having read the news report it seems that the LCJ was talking primarily about civil family court cases. But the suggestion that criminal cases might be transferred to another forum – and the mention of crown courts being ‘ overburdened with sexual offence cases’ suggests that radical reforms – perhaps specifically aimed at this class of cases are being actively mooted.

For as long s the child abuse hysteria has been around. there have been calls for an ‘inquisitorial’ system to replace the ‘adversarial’. In truth in relation to child abuse this amounts to little more than a call for judicial rubber-stamping of allegations opening up the way for compensation. presumably the criminal standard of proof would need to apply if finding of guilt were such to impose custodial penalties – but why not have a quasi civil set up simply imposing financial ones – this would deal with the cases that did not quit cut the mustard but where ‘victims’ needed to be ‘acknowledge/compensated/ reconciled’ whatever the term is for opening up the kitty without sufficient evidence for a criminal conviction.

The ‘prosecutor’ in such a system would probably be regarded as a neutral ‘inquisitor’ – if you want to see how such a system might pan out look no further than the Waterhouse Inquiry. Richard Webster provides a full critique, but see the piercing criticism of AnnaPauffley QC in her address at the conclusion of evidence in the Tribunal:

“Sir, then I come on to my fourth submission: has the approach of the Treasury team been impartial and balanced? We say that it should have been if it was genuine in its desire to conduct an inquisitorial, as against an adversarial process.

It has been evident from the first day of the proceedings, we say, that the Treasury team had a case that they were to pursue.The opening made by Mr Elias set the scene.

In] the section of the opening entitled,‘Highlights and Summary’, he said this:‘Without intending to pre-judge the evidence which is to be heard by the Tribunal, or to influence its view of it in any way, the content, volume and consistency of statements made by complainants appear cogent and very impressive.

If as a whole, or in substantial part, they are accepted by the Tribunal then it may be that they’, and then this next part appeared in bold type [in press copies of the opening statement] ‘will compel the conclusion that children in care in Clwyd and Gwynedd, during the period under review were abused physically and/or sexually on a scale which borders on wholesale exploitation.’

It was a memorable phrase, which unsurprisingly was widely reported not just locally but across England and Wales. It was surprising that such a sensational phrase was used in the light of what Lord Justice Salmon had had to say about counsel’s openings in his report, and I then quote from paragraph 109 to 111. Paragraphs which we say contain sound advice:‘In its discretion the Tribunal will direct whether or not counsel instructed on its behalf should make an opening statement indicating the progress which had been made in the investigation before the evidence is heard.The statement should be an impartial summary of the investigation and avoid any comments which are likely to make sensational headlines. It should be emphasised that until the evidence is heard it would be wrong to draw any conclusions.’

How much better it would have been,we say, if that advice had been followed. Instead, at the beginning of every significant phase, there has been an opening which would seem to have been drafted with sensa- tional headline opportunities uppermost.

Accordingly, we submit that from the first day of the Tribunal’s sitting the die has been cast, witnesses were taken through their evidence-in-chief and complaints were made about abuse they maintained they had suffered.

It mattered not that there may have been material that showed probable inconsistency, the complaint was sympathetically led. It mattered not if that witness also had good things to say about care staff, even if he or she was a Salmon letter recipient.That evidence was not led in-chief very largely.

There has been an almost morbid preoccupation with anything that might have been wrong with the system and criticisms of individuals. Seemingly the Treasury team was not interested in eliciting the positives, the good examples of child care, they were intent on finding out about the bad practice, the mistakes that were made.There has been no balance .’ (see Rcihard Webster The Secret of Bryn Estyn pp445-6)

That the NSPCC might wish to position themselves opportunely in such a system would be no surprise, but the greater threat would be that such a system might realistically be instituted at all in the name of the ‘victims’.

@ I have revisited the question from time to time… as a result of yet another press release from the NSPCC or their ‘apprentice’ – NAPAC @

I rather think the apprentice has been fired.

“What is astonishing about all this that the Grand Alliance of Charity had completely collapsed as the imperatives of self-interest had been exercised. It is not the fact that NAPAC had lost a tug-of-war with NSPCC that is especially shocking; that perhaps would have been deemed inevitable. No, it is rather the power politics that had been going on behind Peter Saunders’ back that is the most amusing facet of all of this. Left dangling and out-of- the-loop, he had been comprehensively out-politicked by the senior Charity. I wondered if Peter still has Faith and Hope to go with his Charity. ”http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/pulling-tugging-forelocks-optional.html

Wonder if paddy power will give me odds on my comment making it past the Moderate Mail…..

“When the Daily Mail has finished bullying Jonathan King, are they going to explain to us why they think Gary Glitter has yet to be prosecuted for “raping a 13 year-old” in Jimmy Savile’s dressing-room? I mean, a victim has told their story so how come Fleet Street’s favourite paedo hasn’t even been charged, never mind arraigned? Operation Yewtree is plainly the biggest legal fraud in the history of the UK and the Mail does itself a serious disservice pandering to it.”

The RSPCA spend much of their time whining in their TV adverts about how much more money they need now that they have a statutory role. Well, if they weren’t going to have enough money to do the job they shouldn’t have lobbied for a quasi-Gestapo role in the first place.

In my recent experience of the RSPCC they seem bugger all interested in helping injured animals if there isn’t going to be someone to prosecute (after a mob-handed raid with supine TV crew in tow).

No doubt the NSPCC and every other major charity are looking on enviously.

LOL, Putin will be pissed off that some dead British DJ he’s never heard of is stealing his thunder Reminds of the late great comic Bill Hicks’ take on the attitude of Fox commentators to anyone who criticised a Republican: “Why do you hate America?” The reductio ad Hitleram is also the reductio ad absurdum: a sure sign the guy making it has no proof of anything and just hopes if he yells loud enough, you’ll give up because your ears are bleeding

it’s impossible to read MWT’s twitter stream. He seems to revel in abuse tales. But why does he have his photo posted in front of the Scotland Yard sign ?. he was never in the met. What a charlatan he is. bound to come unstuck one day. He is someone who relies on endlessly abused children. If it stopped he would be out of a job. He is no different than those clamoring about Satanism : they DEMAND dozens of tiny broken abused and dead children’s bodies.

My attention was directed to his Twitter stream just a few minutes ago – 20 Tweets, one every few minutes, salivating over the details of Max Clifford’s trial. There’s a good PhD for a psychologist in there somewhere……!

“If the average Catholic reader could be tracked down through the swamps of letters-to-the-editor and other places where he momentarily reveals himself, he would be found to be something of a Manichean. By separating nature and grace as much as possible, he has reduced his conception of the supernatural to pious cliche and has become able to recognize nature in literature in only two forms, the sentimental and the obscene. He would seem to prefer the former, while being more of an authority on the latter, but the similarity between the two generally escapes him. He forgets that sentimentality is an excess, a distortion of sentiment, usually in the direction of an overemphasis on innocence; and that innocence, whenever it is overemphasized in the ordinary human condition, tends by some natural law to become its opposite.”

What with the ‘Battle Of The Tiny-Cocked Witchfinders’ in court, the creation of some PERFECT Max-related ‘continuity’ for the next ‘Exposure’ involving a ‘mutual enemy’ of both plus Dizzy Miss Lizzy sticking her sensible shows right in the shi-ite, it’s been quite a week for the impending Apocalypse….

@Margaret Jervis —your article on Spectral evidence —Brilliant —–wish I had known of it when I was the gullible lawyer I was —-and a lovely quote about sentimentality—-not a genuine emotion but an echo perhaps —-to bastardise Flanner O’Connors words —–the echo of the destruction of innocence

The DM piece is fraught with a hysterical writing style that no real editor would allow. Just wave the word ‘pervert’ around as much as you can, lads, and at least 15% of the readership is riveted. Perhaps. At this stage of the proceedings, I believe that the public is starting to wake up, slowly and blearily, but waking nonetheless.

And how dare they sit in judgment when NOTHING has been proven. Or did England switch to Napoleonic law when nobody was looking?

Tell MWT that Magna Carta was at Duncroft and wants to come forward with an accusation – against the British justice system.

From the States (and remember, we get what they get a few monthas later, whether it be weather or social policy), an example of just how the paedogeddon panic has lead to inflexible rules used by morons:

Gosh Anna how is it that you blog on such individually pertinent topics that go to the heart of the way Society is changing??? So many points in this blog if one was minded to itemise them. Well the NSPCC becoming the Prosecuting Authority in some cases might be seen as the Privatisation of one aspect of the services delivered to Society. Gotta be good hasn’t it within current thinking coz civil servants are hopeless aren’t they at delivering services aren’t they??? —look at the CPS’s inability to procure convictions despite all the guidance they are receiving from various sources. Well I wonder just as I wonder about the Trust System in the NHS —great in theory —-in practice? Well I am not so sure because there is something of an elision confusion and doubt about rights and duties—- about what those rights and duties are —- and how they are discharged. As tends to be the movement in Society all want ‘rights’ —-rights over others —-over the means of production— over the levers that control Society —but want to shuck the broader responsibilities that might be seen to go with them I will pursue my agenda as I think fit and whats more my duties are limited by the duties defined in the articles of the NGO by which I am sooo conveniently bound. Its something of the model of the Limited Liability Company whereby a commercially psychopathic entity conducts commerce and about which there is a very clever video on U tube. Things elide further of course on the premise of I like it ,I want it, its mine. ……and once its mine I can do as I like with it —–could be the apparatchiks in the NHS or the good and the great who hold power in NGOs. Of course its the Government shucking responsibility ultimately for the dirty tasks required by those in power —coercion be it by the law or even at its most extreme torture for that is carried out by ‘Private Contractors’ from whom the Government can distance itself if things turn out badly —if actions come to be seen usually belatedly as oppressive. But Anna one thing that really really strikes me about this blog is the ‘inconvenience’ and ‘inefficiency’ of the jury system to all of these movements taking place –I have at times thought the jury system was a bit of a sacred cow and wondered why all the jurists I admired were so wedded to it —-but time to fess up that my doubting it as the central plank albeit a little creaky and insecure one of the legal system indicates both my naivety and my foolishness . It suddenly strikes me that apart from giving some sort of guarantee to the individual perhaps equally if not more importantly it gives the Judge in any case reasonable immunity from complaints about an acquittal —though when one has the likes of Liz Dux saying what should have happened in the Court of a High Court Judge and is not dismissed for it one realises that the days of Judicial Independence may be as numbered as the days of presumption of Innocence —-if things carry on in the direction they appear to be going if a Judge wants to keep his job he had better come up to ‘target’ on rates of conviction —-just as NHS Trusts need to meet ‘targets’. Judge and Jury as independent arbiters of the Truth and the Law in individual cases or a Managerial System justified on grounds of convenience and efficiency judged of course by statistics presumably —-gosh just as good as the mathematical/statistical predictions made by those brilliant bankers gambling ultimately with the taxpayers money and without any personal responsibility. It will of course all end in tears but not before a great deal of the blood of individuals has been spilt. —-not those of course who champion the model and benefit by it —no more than the blood of NHS Managers when an NHS Trust fails the individual patient. Victims and Patients having a voice ??? Nice catchy political phrase and perhaps they haven’t always had an adequate voice —but are the present movements about giving a voice to them or amplifying the voice of those who have arrogated the right to speak on their behalf in the manner in which might be seen as serving the advocate better than client —Gosh how many times have I heard Lawyers talking about MY case.??? Quoi ??? I always thought it was the Clients ??? and I like to think Justice is a shared concept rather than the preserve of just a few.

@Fatsteve – thanks for your comments – The O’Connor quote is from her essays Mystery and Manners – well worth getting hold of . The depressing thing about the 95 article is that it’s gotten a whole lot worse since then in the cjs with the primary flaws magnified. And now the CPS are the official witchfinder generals employing ‘spectral evidence’ courtesy of the Starmer guidelines – agree that the entire shebang will collapse – but at what cost to us all? When I first came across the ‘hoax’ I naively thought that the whole thing could be sorted by sensible decisions of people in authority. But of course if you are ‘within’ the system you are effectively knobbled. Seems history chooses its own path. Funny how we still cling on to the belief in truth and justice though – and here’s another gem of a quote , if you’ll excuse me. ‘The truth is singular; but lies have many faces’

@Margaret Jarvis —gonna buy Mystery and Manners and thanks for taking the trouble to tell me. Yea I too always had a touching faith in sensible people ……till such people appeared to get rarer and rarer —-and I lament the change in the way law is now practiced —-just so much less fun and way less satisfying than going home after a tough but satisfying day having dealt with and resolved good substantive points taken by both sides and resolved to the satisfaction of both parties—- and knowing one had held up ones small part of the blue sky called justice over one’s client and one’s opponent and his client —-No ego involved just the task in hand performed well I have seen the web site of the firm you practice with —gosh brave brave stuff in this political climate but I will warrant the hardest and also the most gratifying of work. Now the only fun in practice is tweaking the tail of the self righteous when they know neither their trade or understand that the outcome sought is not win or lose but some 20/20 vision of what the truth might be —-but dangerous sometimes —-but hell that’s what is all that came to be left for me at least

@FatSteve – my work is all backstage – couldn’t handle the constipated court dramas of today anyway. We get alot of contemptuous grimaces by prosecutors and a slapdash highhanded approach by the omnishambles CPS to disclosure – but some of the cases brought beggar belief – and at the client’s own expense on acquittal (have to shuffle the new ‘means test’) to get anything back. The worst thing is ploughing through the verbiage – see work more as a duty than anything approaching reward. I’m on linked in if you want to talk shop -we’re always on the look out for informed counsel.

@Margaret Jervis —may seem strange but I always liked the duty part of legal life —a little pretentious of me (hey always the poseur I freely admit) to claim Philosophical Authority for my quirks but I admire aspects of Kantian Philosophy greatly —-the purpose of life is the building of self and that is achieved by the assumption and discharge of duty. I steer clear of putting too much about myself in the public domain so I am not to be found on linked in or pretty much anywhere else on the web—-the wisdom acquired by having spent some considerable number of years swimming in the murkier (but hugely entertaining) pools of commercial litigation that the law provides if one is minded to hunt them out—- but Anna has my e mail if you want to contact me and if you think I can help don’t hesitate to ask —-Gosh could I ever be mistaken for Counsel? Well my days of posturing successfully are not totally behind me despite advancing years if you thought I had been at or was still at the Bar —no just a common law hack from the solicitors branch of the profession of law now no longer in practice though still taking pleasure in spilling a little blood of the unbeliever (in common decency) when the opportunity presents itself and hugely enjoying seeing others doing the same. Anna’s blog cheers me up hugely on that count —topics chosen, prose used, authorities quoted…….and venal characters put in the spotlight ……..and the educated? ….should that be decent? …..more accurately genuinely intellectual and well read people that are attracted to it ….and sorry whilst I buy into your deontology I can’t buy into your being a background individual shuffling through means tests to earn a crust with the prose and analysis you used in the article you wrote —or the quotes you are minded to use.

@FatSteve Yes – I’m a devotee of the categorical imperative myself though if may be more honoured by the breach in day to day matters. Liberating – objective decisions with or without personal interest. Never taken on in England – the call to ‘duty’ being authoritarian rather than philosophical logic. Heinrich von Kleist wanted to invade England with Napoleon to spread the Kantish gospel – you can see his point. Couple of bad faith egs latter day ‘whistleblowers ‘gagged’by bumper bonus compromise agreements. When has the real question been asked? Rape ‘victims’ who chose when and how to report, maybe decades later crowing about ‘being believed’ ‘traumatised by cross-examination’ and a ‘not guilty verdict’ (Not your problem honey, it’s a duty to report a sexual predator that might place others at risk . Of that you can be proud and your conscience enlightened. It’s not ‘about’ you)

Anyway will ask the go-between for contact. – think most of us who prefer the discursive blogoria are in the upper echelons of life.

@Margaret Jervis I would welcome an e mail if you are minded to send one and if you could make some reading recommendation similar to O’Connor I would welcome them —I will lay odds I might know a few. Gotta say I chuckled (or should that be wept) a fair amount when reading your spectral evidence article —not just the prose but the deconstruction of spectral evidence using amongst other devices the Dadaesque analogy —-quite quite alien to the legal mind —-but I suspect quite quite accurate –and within that clash I detect between the legal mind and philosophical/psychological mind —-where perhaps both parties are so so sure they hold the only real truth there is the real prospect of an Hegelian synthesis —-a synthesis I see you as attempting . Do I see it as likely? fraid not in this day and age –everyone fearfully clutching to the comfort blanket of their profession to keep putting bread in their mouths —-and never more so than those employed by the State who as I see it look on their profession less as an opportunity to go out into the outside objective world and learn and enjoy but more to venture into the outside world reluctantly from their subjective world and clutching their blanket tight when they know there is no fresh experience that might endanger them —the imperative to have control over their own lives and where necessary others when they interface with them ——-soooo much fun to be had I imagine watching a member of the CPS clutching to his blanket cowering behind Counsel as one reaches and threatens to tug on it. As I guess you probably already know —or perhaps more accurately the way I see things its the subject/object problem dealt with so well by Kant and then so hopelessly and one sidedly developed by the philosophers of the left that resulted in the sterile self regarding post modernism that has morphed into the idea of all subjective opinions having some sort of equivalency and validity though respect is only accorded to those that comply with the utopia being crafted.by the present political elite I think one can tweak the law endlessly but justice (in so far as we might try to understand it) just edges ever further away. Whats worrying is that its just too expensive (deliberately so I opine) to resist the present onward march. The system needs philosophical/political overhaul —-starting with a review of outcomes sought and imperatives that can never be compromised whatever the cost—-Devlin’s seamless web that is essential to a stable Society . For the moment though I just observe and keep myself and my family safe ……but encourage them to read the likes of O’Connor coz hell that’s the real world

@FatSteve I confess I wrote this article before I became legally engaged – hence the subsequent dulling of the mind in these matters. Synthesis? Everything has a reason, though not as people may know it. I do remember however I wonderful address by a defence QC at an idiotic Old Bailey case c 1994 when he quite captured my sentiments rhetorically without the philosophical dross (NG verdicts for a catalogue of horrors) The QC in question appeared to go off to the far east after this. You can see why

@Margaret Jervis what’s to do? What I think is of first important is not to subsumed or buy into —-to try to look for an identity —-as part of the hysterical contorted world of infotainment, political correctness, and of facile popular culture (in the broadest sense of that word by which I mean rather more than just what passes for entertainment) —the world of the circus rather than the Savannah. To some extent that is what drew my attention to the Savile case —not his alleged kiddy fiddling —-but why during his life he had been such an important figure? —-why such an icon? I thought his ‘act’ whilst popular and effective was ultimately pretty unsavoury —say a bit like a doner kebab —yea on occasion when one has lost ones marbles on the way home after too much to drink it might seem ambrosia (wasn’t that drink rather than food fat steve?)……but as the national dish served up to celebrate and mark ‘important’ events in National Life ???? —-What Savile the Knight of the Realm and of Rome? Apparently the chosen dish by Thatcher every New years Eve? The magic feast put before Charles and Diana to cure the ills of their marriage (if that rumour has any basis?) The food to cure the insane of Broadmoor and the cripples of Leeds? Hey I thought to myself what on earth had the Good and the Great understood about him that so escaped me? Well it appears on examination nothing that I valued though apparently of value to many both at the top and bottom of Society —-for me just one of the Nation’s professional clowns whose act was entertaining but could not be considered ‘profound’ in any sense I understand that word —although it was apparently lauded and rewarded as such. I take a rather similar view of MWT and the others riding the Savile saga now –a different sort of act —say the animal act that follows the clowns in a circus —-not real dangerous beasts red in tooth and claw in the wild —-just some old mangy toothless creatures who may or may not have had but who look as if they could well have had a taste for the flesh of innocent virgins though perhaps like in the circus in Rome, the Lion , the Virgin and the Heroic Gladiator are just playing roles rather than anything more —if one wants to experience the real thing then sorry its out to Africa, spear in hand and confront the real beasts. Hell that’s the real thing, the real fun ….the real fear ……the real danger ……the real achievement. —one that requires skill guile and understanding of the hunt and the prey. The circus is just a simulacrum Gotta say from the odd anecdote Anna lets drop about her professional life (usually about her time in Wales) hunting the real beasts lacks the glamour of the Circus and the rewards (such as they are and however ‘real’ and of ‘value’ they might be) of the circus entertainer but I suggest such rewards might be considered more profound simply because they are more real —perhaps that why the circus entertainers find Anna blog sooooo annoying —for it doesn’t play along with the narrative of the circus being the real thing. Now of course all have differing realities —perhaps the reality spun by Savile or MWT is what life is all about —certainly they have popular acclaim but for some its not —-its just a circus not the real thing —life might just be a little more serious than that …….waaaaay more fun ……real beasts ……real victims……real dirty dangerous fights with lives at stake ….might be the predatory paedophile still on the loose and well hidden in the undergrowth whilst the circus distracts ……..the real innocent virgin….or the defence of a harmless creature mistaken as a predator just coz he looks as if he might be one coz the circus is in town. To answer your question as to whats to be done.? Well I tried to get some time in Africa spear in hand so to speak (forever the poseur I like to imagine I am something I am probably not and I suspect I only got as far as Calais and not Addis Ababa but at least it was some distance from the circus) and now like Plato’s Philosopher I take shelter in the lee of the wall whilst it rains and watch it —it will blow over though not before more than a few are drowned who misjudged the weather —I have some doubts one can do much to stop the rain —-great fun trying (but trying also) as I think you and the firm you work for probably understand waaaay better than I do. Heart-breaking though that resources don’t find their way to Africa rather than the Circus so to speak but that is not what its about coz there are few headlines (or votes) in that and the CPS and Police in too many instances prefer clearing up after the tame rather than the wild beast Whats important I venture is that those who understand that blue skies exist—-what a proper sunny day looks like—-and remind themselves and others of it —-no need for a MWT holding up an umbrella and saying look its only people like me that keep you dry —-or others peddling all different colours of Umbrella —hey Anna why have you left off our Vera (Baird) I thought that was the Raccoon’s favourite delicacy?—its why I take a little comfort from this blog and its popularity —and get some pretty good references and reminders to what a blue sky looks like —often with the added benefit of enjoying wit and clever prose—-always the mark of reality —your article included —-never understood why the furry tea cup was so unsettling till I understood it is based on confusion of the senses—hey perhaps I am a little effusive at times —-but I really really like real blue skies and get particularly happy when I glimpse it —particularly when someone tries to tell me the umbrellas they are selling are essential.

@SamBest I suppose I thought something of the same at the time re JS. But since this amazing charade has taken over, I’ve been obliged to examine his life more closely – thanks to this blog, and those of Moor Larkin and Rabbitaway – and I discovered that behind the facade of vulgar Court Jester, there was in fact a substantial and profound individual who did indeed practice what he preached. In this of course he is the reverse of the MWTs and a host of other high profile ‘heart of their sleeve’ celebs of the sentimental persuasion. Whether he was the close confidante of Royals and others I would doubt – I can’t see him being the marriage-broker between the excitable Di and the Prince who winced at the mention of ‘popular culture.’ Di had a range of confidantes from loopy alternative therapists, through Sinason sidekick feminist therapist Susie Orbach, the sensible Dom Anthony Sutch and of course the sensationalising writer Andrew Morton and a DMail journo who’s name escapes me. Can’t imagine Jim being part of this – he’d be too direct. Charles settled on his uppercrust Cotswold country pals and Jonathan Dimbleby. It’s true he was given some sort of role at Broadmoor throughEdwina Currie – but that was the kind of minister Currie was – willing to take a punt on oddball solutions to break the mould. The gov wanted to push ‘community care’ by closing down the asylums and Currie was in charge of this – this of course was as much a cost saving idea as it was to further ‘mental health’ rights claims popular at the time – the asylums were on very valuable land in the Home Counties – though at least one site became the prison Highdown. And of course it didn’t save any money and the previous era of incarcerating people for life for being a slightly dottysingle mum or whatever had anyway faded. But I guess the Broadmoor initiative was a stunt in support of ‘humanising’ institutions – because it was recognised at the time that there were many people there who should not be who had simply become forgotten (who should be there is of course another question). but surely his role has been overstated in retrospect? He was really only an ‘honorary’ game changer – haven’t people like Branson been recruited to similar positions and then there was Geri Haliwell and others as UN ambassadors – Sara Payne as ‘Victim’s champion’ or commissioner or whatever. Fact is though JS did meet and greet and get to know Broadmoor inmates – he did the job he was asked to do.

The Witchfinder General has had another little spot of bother of late Take a look at his twitter interactions with a few individuals pointing out to him that he swallowed the tale of the rather revolting woman who has been loudly shouting she ‘outed’ Ian Watkins as a paedo. Anyone who had done even 10 minutes googling at the time Watkins was arrested would have discovered her to be a most unreliable witness indeed, with a background in prostitution, porn, and promoting an ‘escort’ service which promised ‘no limits’. They would have noted that she was teamed up with Watkins in his depravity and indeed chased him for years. All for ‘research’ she claimed unconvincingly. She has now also been charged with possession of a category 4 image, as well as distribution. MWT swallowed her every word, promoted her excuses, and now tries to shut everyone up by tweeting ‘sub judice’. I think he is more than a little bit thick, myself.

I am an ex-employee of the NSPCC. I can honestly say they treat their staff very badly, forced me to resign when off sick after surgery for something I did not do and now state they did not force me to resign. They lie and cover their backs, they have no integrity of any kind. They also make so so so many mistakes, how can we trust them with children’s livelihoods? How can they have a sacked ex-member of the labour party (financial trickery) as one of their directors…how honest will he be? They also waste money, £515 for a train ticket and have their own training centre that lays on full dinners and B&B? How many £2 a month is that? Worst of all they lie. Lie about interactions, stats and numbers of contacts from children and are wholly immoral.

There are hundreds of ex NSPCC staff that all need to unite to fight this so called charities immorality! They even publish internal behaviours for staff yet behave like immoral bullies. Staff are railroaded and bullied they have little or no say in any changes to work hours or shifts. This can only happen in the UK, they have lost their way!

If one had some sort of documentary evidence that would satisfy Ms Raccoon that it was worthwhile putting her neck on the block on your behalf – then one could e-mail annaraccoon2010@gmail.com and she might be interested in putting it in the public domain.

On the other hand, if one didn’t have a shred of evidence that Liz Dux was an alcoholic transgendered kleptomaniac but still wished to put that dubious allegation in the public domain – one could start up a blog for free, and put one’s own neck on the block…

Make a start by e-mailing Ms Raccoon and we can discuss whose neck goes where, in confidence!